should read "as a ground-up re-write..." You made it to only the second sentence before an error.

Quote:

Originally Posted by AppleInsider

... that have led some in video editing circles unofficially coin the release "iMovie Pro."

should read "to unofficially coin the release..."

Quote:

Originally Posted by AppleInsider

...managers who openly addressed the softwares "missing features,"

should be "software's", with an apostrophe

Quote:

Originally Posted by AppleInsider

...RED digital cameras, which are favorite among filmmakers

should be either "are favorites among" or (a somewhat flawed improvement) "which are a favorite..."

Quote:

Originally Posted by AppleInsider

...Apple says that its untrue that editors can't set...

should be "it's untrue", with an apostrophe making a contraction for "it is"

Quote:

Originally Posted by AppleInsider

...and there's reportedly no plans to address the matter...

Should be "and there're...", making the contraction "there are"...no plans rather than the contraction "there is"...no plans. In grade school we called it subject-verb agreement

Quote:

Originally Posted by AppleInsider

...After consulting with the Apple project manager's, the Time's David Pogue concluded...

This is my favorite, since you've squeezed in two apostrophe errors in the space of three words. It should be "managers..." without an apostrophe, and it should be "Times'..." with the apostrophe after Times, because the name of the paper Pogue writes for is the New York Times, not New York Time.

I'm a little pissed at myself for writing such a sarcastic post, but I'm even more pissed at your publication of a piece making it so easy to do. A lot of the ideas in this article are clearly expressed, and you point out at its conclusion that you really had the scoop on the story months ago. Why ruin that good journalism with such inattention to detail? If you expect us to read your articles, we expect you to read them once, carefully, before posting them. Peace.

Film/television studios wouldn't use Blu-ray authoring tools in FCP so they don't care if Apple offers it or not.

On the side of independent filmmaking. Its much more logistically feasible if they go the video on demand, streaming, downloading route. Than try to deal with distributing Blu-ray discs. So they wouldn't likely make much use of Blu ray authoring tools in FCP either.

I'm simply saying there is little reason that we have to stick to the standard NLE UI because its roots come from a physical machine. When you are working with software there is less need to replicate the controls of a machine.

On the other hand, different is not automatically better.

And different for the sake of being different?

One reason ProTools in pro audio reigns supreme as a standard, or at least omnipresent, is because every time someone comes up with some new useful twists in an audio UI they feel the need to go completely in a new direction, as if to prove they are the new guard and the PT is an old and wasteful IU. Many have come, few have stuck around. Some work for a different way of recording (Ableton Live) but never made a dent in ProTools target user. Most that remain, even as they're different in their own way, are often more ProTools-like than not.

If you're going to reinvent the wheel, make it good. Don't give me an oval wheel with a flashy display and say I'm a fool for pointing out it's a step back.

It also temporarily angers some professional FCP editors while they wait for features.

It's partly to do with trust though. If a consumer uses iPhoto and Apple drops it, they pick up Picasa or whatever. It doesn't matter because consumers don't really care that much.

When you have your livelihood based on a workflow and Apple instantly throws it upside down without a backup plan, it's not really as inconsequential. People with so much riding on it would appreciate a little transparency. The whole 'ta-daaa, we broke everything, Merry Christmas' routine is fine for people who want a new iPhone but not for people who could easily have invested up to $100,000 in the business and built it around Final Cut Studio. You can't just convert thousands of files that you may reuse or revise on a whim.

Quote:

Originally Posted by bwik

Compare the number of Prosumers (5 million?) with the number of professional editors (20,000?) and get back to me.

Would those prosumers be using it if none of the higher-end users were? If people aspire to reach a certain goal, they need to see what's required to reach it. If those people ditch FCP in droves, then yeah there may be a 10x market increase from prosumers but maybe not, they might go right onto a more flexible package.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joseph L

Nothing to fight about. It is a bag of hurt and Apple is wise to reject it.

I don't think they rejected it outright. You can author to Blu-Ray formats, you can use Encore for menus, you can buy inexpensive 3rd-party burners. The only thing you can't do is watch commercial Blu-Ray movies but just reboot into Windows to do that.

It's partly to do with trust though. If a consumer uses iPhoto and Apple drops it, they pick up Picasa or whatever. It doesn't matter because consumers don't really care that much.

Yup. Love your "Merry Christmas, it's broke" line, (though I meant to quote it and screwed it up going dit dit dit swipe oops on the iPod. I agree with the whole paragraph that I'm not quoting : )

But here's the thing about prosumers using it if the pros weren't (sorry, way too much trouble to get the quote back : ) ) I've been to Aperture presentations at several Apple stores (we're lucky to have a bunch here in NYC) and at every one I got the sense that the non pros present were not affected by that. The vibe was that it was cool to have an affordable software that they could do some pro type stuff with, and seeing the demo was all it took really. I doubt any of them knew Adobe's LightRoom even existed much less if there were more pros using Ap than LR.

And here's another thing: Aperture still needs some serious work. It's good, but there are issues. So what does Apple do instead of making it better? They drop the price to $80 freakin' bucks!!

On the other hand, different is not automatically better. And different for the sake of being different?

I certainly did not say that.

Quote:

One reason ProTools in pro audio reigns supreme as a standard, or at least omnipresent, is because every time someone comes up with some new useful twists in an audio UI they feel the need to go completely in a new direction, as if to prove they are the new guard and the PT is an old and wasteful IU. Many have come, few have stuck around. Some work for a different way of recording (Ableton Live) but never made a dent in ProTools target user. Most that remain, even as they're different in their own way, are often more ProTools-like than not.

Pro Tools has pretty well dominated audio recording for a long time. I don't follow the ups and downs of digital audio recording software. But I doubt Pro Tools dominance is simply based on the fact that they've perfected the UI and never changed it.

They must have changed and adapted to some degree as Windows and Mac have radically changed their UI over the past 10 years.

Apple did turn things upside in the sense that no one but Apple knows the future of FCP at this point. I can understand concern around that.

In another sense it hasn't really been turned upside down because I doubt many post facilities or editors were planning to upgrade from the current FCP to the newest exactly on June 21st. So life goes and they can continue with what they already were doing.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marvin

When you have your livelihood based on a workflow and Apple instantly throws it upside down without a backup plan, it's not really as inconsequential.

On the other hand, different is not automatically better. And different for the sake of being different?

Quote:

Originally Posted by TenoBell

I certainly did not say that.

Didn't say you did. Why are you reading that into it?

Quote:

Originally Posted by TenoBell

Pro Tools has pretty well dominated audio recording for a long time. I don't follow the ups and downs of digital audio recording software. But I doubt Pro Tools dominance is simply based on the fact that they've perfected the UI and never changed it.

They must have changed and adapted to some degree as Windows and Mac have radically changed their UI over the past 10 years.

You're missing and or ignoring the jist my post, as is your habit, and then saying something I didn't say. I made no comment nor judgement on ProTools interface as being perfect, nor whether it ever changed or not. I said it was the leader and others have failed because they tried to be different solely to stand out as different from PT at all costs.

I mean, what is wrong with what you have now considering you've been using it for several years.

Nothing until you find yourself repeatedly booting into an older version of OS X for one program that no longer runs after a minor OS update. Even a bigger problem when a hardware upgrade means you can't use that older OS X release, so you end up keeping two machines around anyway.

I know these things are bound to happen, but some respect has to be paid to legacy users so that upgrading to a new version of an app doesn't mean throwing out a decade of work and experience in one flush.

BTW, Pogue's blog has accumulated some very good responses with further explanations from people in the field which would help those who still don't understand what people like spliff monkey, mstone and others have posted here eloquently and openmindedly. Everyone who hasn't already read them should.

I'm actually a big fan of Pogues and enjoy his take on products. I don't even think he's wrong about most of what he says in his blog (but he misses the boat on some of the biggies, IMO), but the real info is in the responses.

Out of all the complaints, the most ridiculous and unsupportable is that the new version is "not for professionals."

A few old geezers that are afraid of doing anything new or stopping their addiction to magnetic tape (of all things), are making a lot of sounds that it isn't for "professionals" because it removes their ancient workflows from the equation. The majority of professionals using the old Final Cut will move to the new one with no problems at all. The majority of professionals don't even use tape.

Final Cut Pro X is so totally *not* a "consumer" product in any way. Your just being ridiculous.

So what do I do when a client sends a 50 year old tape for migration and archive? Do I say, "To bad, no one uses tape anymore."

What do I say when a client asked for the audio stems to be used in a Pro Tools mixdown session? "Oh, you don't really need to do that anymore".

What do I tell the Smoke editor when I can't send him an OMF or XML file anymore? "Oh, you really don't need to do that effect."

And to the client supervising the session, " Oh, don't look at the $25k broadcast monitor anymore, the colors aren't accurate."

To the network that wants an EDL of the session, " Oh, you are so old fashioned".

Professionals give their clients what they want. Professionals don't tell their clients that their workflows are "ancient workflows".

"What do you need, Mr. Client? We are ready to help give you what you need".

Please tell the broadcast networks that they "don't even use tape." And tell that to their face.

Apple just created a major PR issue. Why the heck didn't they state everything up front? They should have had a special event or press release to let their intention known. Instead they get everyone upset and ready to ditch the product. Smooth move Apple - not!

That Pogue's comment regarding Apple's method summed it up perfectly. It is a well known fact people just need to understand Apple MO. Mind, people rarely change. We are not in the 1880s any more but I understand the frustration. Still, there are choices and one of them is to wait.

I think the value of speaking with David Pogue (a non-editor) is that he is not as emotionally attached to what he feels FCP must absolutely do. He can look at the fact that Apple totally rebuilt and restructure the foundation of FCP X. And is willing to understand that more is to come.

Many in the editing community are unwilling to be quite this open minded about the situation. Which is their choice. They want what they want and they want it now. Which is understandable.

Many in the editing community have to make something called money using this software.

Out of all the complaints, the most ridiculous and unsupportable is that the new version is "not for professionals."

A few old geezers that are afraid of doing anything new or stopping their addiction to magnetic tape (of all things), are making a lot of sounds that it isn't for "professionals" because it removes their ancient workflows from the equation. The majority of professionals using the old Final Cut will move to the new one with no problems at all. The majority of professionals don't even use tape.

Final Cut Pro X is so totally *not* a "consumer" product in any way. Your just being ridiculous.

This has nothing to do with tape (or little to do with it- tape is still a delivery requirement to many markets) and everything to do with features that are REQUIRED for deliverables within the professional film and television community.

That's okay, though, don't worry about it - it's not a community in which you will ever dwell with your juvenile attitude.

Quote:

Originally Posted by techno

Why do you have to be so mean? It is fine to disagree with people in here, but no need to insult.

The alternative would have been for Apple to wait till they had multi-camera editing ready, and then release. You would have been in no different situation at all (waiting till multi-camera editing was ready) and in the meanwhile those who did not need it, would have had to wait longer.

Its a complete rewrite. Why is anyone shocked there are missing features?

Yes - with a line like pros will love it (sometime last year) I am surprised they would release such a half assed product.

Guys, I'm an Apple guy through and through, but I think a lot of you are still really missing the point.

Apple is about to see a massive decline in pro edit suite market share. It has nothing to do with dinosaurs wedded to tape or old guys unwilling to learn a new paradigm. As has been described at length, this version of FCP lacks basic tools that are required for pro work flows, and there isn't much in these statements from FCP product managers that suggests that's going to get much better. Better, yes, but not good enough to qualify. It's just a stone fact; if you doubt it talk to someone who makes their living using FCP.

Now, it may be that Apple will sell a great many more copies of FCPX than they ever did FCP. There may be an explosion of prosumer and one man shops doing, well, kind of similar work, since FCP X is so adamant about herding you in certain directions, with automated process and limited presets. For a single person on a single machine, who intends to publish online, FCP X is a powerful tool. Wedding videographers and small market media guys are probably going to love it.

But for pro production houses a lot of the damage is already done. Apple has signaled that they don't understand pro work flows, that they don't care about this market, and that frankly they can't be trusted to provide a stable path going forward. I'm talking about people with 10 years and hundreds of thousands of dollars invested in FCP processes who have simply been cut off at the knees, with no warning whatsoever. You don't have to be some kind of Apple basher to see how destructive to loyalty that is. Look around online; large post houses are already on record as planning on switching away, either to Avid or Adobe.

So Apple is going a different way with FCP X, one that has no place in professional edit suites. That's entirely their right. But it's kind of stunning, in that FCP had managed to carve out such a nice chunk of that market, and gave Apple a marquee software presence that helped legitimize the brand among pros.

Now obviously they don't need that kind of "legitimacy" any more, they're thriving in lots markets. Losing the pro post market at this point isn't going to hurt them a bit. But don't imagine that the controversy can be chalked up reactionary old timers. You're just wrong about that. Unless you imagine that the cool new "future" of video editing that Apple is bravely pointing us towards means that every project is done on the fly by individuals with laptops who send the results off to Vimeo or You Tube. That's cool as far as it goes, and it's cool that Apple can provide powerful tools to do those things.

But they're not going to start making feature films, television shows and major ad campaigns that way, and that's a market Apple has just ceded to the competition.

I think the value of speaking with David Pogue (a non-editor) is that he is not as emotionally attached to what he feels FCP must absolutely do. He can look at the fact that Apple totally rebuilt and restructure the foundation of FCP X. And is willing to understand that more is to come.

Many in the editing community are unwilling to be quite this open minded about the situation. Which is their choice. They want what they want and they want it now. Which is understandable.

Apple did turn things upside in the sense that no one but Apple knows the future of FCP at this point. I can understand concern around that.

In another sense it hasn't really been turned upside down because I doubt many post facilities or editors were planning to upgrade from the current FCP to the newest exactly on June 21st. So life goes and they can continue with what they already were doing.

How can they upgrade at any point with a lacking of older-project compatibility?

I didn't say the standard NLE absolutely positively has to be replaced. No where in that post do I give a hard black or white assessment.

I asked why is it a requirement that we stick with it. Is there no room to try something different?

I know you didn't. But it bears consideration that usually conventions serve us, sometimes they don't. In this case I don't think the ideas or conventions in FCP7 are detrimental. Apple are just being... well Apple with their overzealous belief that they do ALL things better. Really they know all of the polish on FCPX isn't worth what they could have done under the hood in FCP7.

Editing conventions represent a common shared language. Like I said why haven't we thrown out every convention in human history? There is no requirement for us to have conventions other than it'll otherwise cause bedlum when we don't speak the same language. I had that experience when I came from the west coast to the east coast as a lighting director. None of the techs spoke the same language I thought they were idiots, they thought I was an idiot. In fact, we just had a different ways of communicating. Once we spoke a common language it all went smoothly. Conventions are just as important as throwing them out the window when they DON'T serve you, but many Do serve us daily. It just makes life easier. In the case of FCP I think it would have been better severed had Apple just left a handful of features intact in FCPX or put more effort under the hood of FCP7. I'm sure it was easier to do what they did, but they freaked a bunch of loyal supporters out.

PS.
I just read the Pogue blog. I'm convinced you ARE he now.

turtles all the way up and turtles all the way down... infinite context means infinite possibility

I realize that you work in a setting where FCP couldnt be used to finish projects, but one thing to consider that I think you are overlooking is that there is a significant amount of content produced that targets smaller audiences even when comparing content that is destined for the big screen or broadcast.

I would strongly argue that there is great value to these works and that these types of projects can indeed be finished in the FCP suite (referring to 7 speciffically, not X). Take for instance any of Ken Burns' works (I realize his team is editing on Avid) or any similar documentary. There really isnt much in these cases that FCS couldnt handle.

Strictly speaking, these ARE professional settings. Since its release, Final Cut was really targeting this low to mid-range professional setting. Its only been in the last few years that the high-end market has even taken a look at what FCP has to offer. Budget obviously plays a large role in determining what tools you have at your disposal, and having low to mid-range tools in the market enables a lot of valuable content to be produced that wouldnt have the opportunity to be created otherwise. Trust me, there is more than "crappy cable" out there.

With that said, as someone who is in a "mid-range" professional setting, Ive felt that FCS has been targeted toward my use quite well. There are several new and improved tools in
FCPX that I think would enable me to produce better quality work, but Im in the same boat as you in terms of being able to depend on FCPX at this time.

To those ranting about the rants:

Its very perplexing to me that Apple seems to be trying to offer features that only the highest end professionals would ever need to utilize (4K?), but then not offer essentials like broadcast monitor support that even mid-range pros depend on. Thats the type of thing that people that actually work in the industry (at any level) are concerned about and what people who dont work in the industry just cant grasp.

In the end, Final Cut is just another tool to get a job done. If a tool cant do what you need, then you have to find another that can. Of course, if you already have a working tool you can keep using that. But software rarely stays stagnant and is always evolving. If a better tool comes along and you can afford it, then it only makes sense to move ahead (at the right time). But if a tool touts a lot of new and improved features that you could take advantage of, but misses the mark on even a single feature that you depend on to get the job done, then it becomes as some have said "unusable" (meaning specifically, you cant use it to get the job done that you need it to).

This isnt about "staying in an archaic workflow that you are comfortable with", its about getting the job done as efficiently and best you can. I would argue that the majority of professional editors are on the higher end of technical know-how, fear of learning a new interface is NOT much of a consideration at all.

One of the fastest ways to lose a client is to say "I cant do that". FCPX appeared to offer more tools to say "yes I can do that", but in other situations just doesn't cut it. The real question is, will it ever? We just dont know.

Personally, Im looking at FCPX with caution. Im obviously sticking with FCP7 for the time being, it works fine even though Im looking longingly at some of X's features. The question is, what happens a bit down the line? Is Apple committed to the market? Will they ACTUALLY provide the missing necessary features? I really hope so. But honestly, recent product cuts (Xserve, Color, Shake, Final Cut Server, etc) make me extremely nervous. Apple says they are committed, but really how many times has Apple said one thing and done another? To my recollection, often (again, refer to product cuts for evidence, you dont cut a product you are committed to).

Sounds like they didn't do their homework. Is Apple caring too little for the professional?

Yes, they care "too little for the professional" --that's why instead of piling incremental stuff and charging multi-1000 dollars for a few lame additions (a la Adobe), they spend the effort and money to rebuild Final Cut Pro and it's frameworks from the ground up, even if missing some stuff in the initial release.

Out of all the complaints, the most ridiculous and unsupportable is that the new version is "not for professionals."

A few old geezers that are afraid of doing anything new or stopping their addiction to magnetic tape (of all things), are making a lot of sounds that it isn't for "professionals" because it removes their ancient workflows from the equation. The majority of professionals using the old Final Cut will move to the new one with no problems at all. The majority of professionals don't even use tape.

Final Cut Pro X is so totally *not* a "consumer" product in any way. Your just being ridiculous.

Apple just created a major PR issue. Why the heck didn't they state everything up front? They should have had a special event or press release to let their intention known. Instead they get everyone upset and ready to ditch the product. Smooth move Apple - not!

That's a good point you make, I was wondering about that myself.
It could be that if you are within such a project in such an intensive way, you loose a bit objectivity and cannot anticipate completely what other people might think.
If you don't know that you have to address something than your are not going to do that.

And here's another thing: Aperture still needs some serious work. It's good, but there are issues. So what does Apple do instead of making it better? They drop the price to $80 freakin' bucks!!

What more do we need to know? : )

Yeah, they seem to have cottoned onto the fact that consumers like low prices and there are a lot of people who don't care about making it in an industry by aspiring to a certain workflow but instead getting a job done. I find it odd though that Apple take polar opposite views regarding hardware and software. 'we can't make a computer for $500 that isn't a piece of junk'. How about 'we can't make a piece of software for under $300 that isn't a piece of junk'?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tallest Skil

Oh, you can. It takes two programs to do it, but you can play straight from the disc.

You mean MakeMKV streaming server into VLC? It's not going to be that intuitive for a lot of people to setup. VLC should really do it for you. It's good that there is at least an option that doesn't require Windows though.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tenobell

In another sense it hasn't really been turned upside down because I doubt many post facilities or editors were planning to upgrade from the current FCP to the newest exactly on June 21st. So life goes and they can continue with what they already were doing.

They might have been planning to upgrade to FCS 3 in some timeframe around that date though, they might have taken on a set of new staff or planned a production and need to buy more licenses.

I just don't understand why you'd even release software under the name Final Cut Pro that doesn't open Final Cut Pro files or allow any sort of migration. Are they telling these people to just go somewhere else because they're not wanted any more, they just want iMovie users?

Quote:

Originally Posted by nvidia2008

Yup, how many years later and we're still waiting for QuickTime X to bring back QT7 features?

Even one is too many.

Quote:

Originally Posted by addabox

But for pro production houses a lot of the damage is already done. Apple has signaled that they don't understand pro work flows, that they don't care about this market, and that frankly they can't be trusted to provide a stable path going forward.

The warning signs of this were all there with Shake too with the team leaving Apple. A similar event may have happened here:

I wonder if they'll end up working at Adobe just like members of the Shake team work at the Foundry.

Anyway, as time goes on I learn to cut Apple more and more slack when it comes to doing really wild things. I've been proved wrong on many occasions with things I never thought would work out well. When you cut them too much slack, they pull a little too hard and I think they did it this time but I can see it working out if they make the right moves.

While I think releasing it so soon and cutting the old one off was premature, it gets everyone's feelings out so they know what to fix from the loudest screams. No multicam doesn't mean you can't do your job because it wasn't there before, it's just harder for now while they fix it. No broadcast monitor support isn't a big deal if you don't finish in Final Cut, that can be left to the colour grading stage.

The only big issues are the hardware support, opening FCP files, import/export and they can fix this any time they want. Say they fixed multi-cam, file import, OMF/XML/EDL by the end of July and launched Lion with the new Quicktime, wouldn't everything die down? I suspect the magnetic timeline might cause some issues with import/export and they should have worked it out before shipping but if they fix it in a couple of months, I think they can get a pass.

You mean MakeMKV streaming server into VLC? It's not going to be that intuitive for a lot of people to setup. VLC should really do it for you. It's good that there is at least an option that doesn't require Windows though.

Yep. And yep.

Quote:

Even one is too many.

Hey, at least they're adding them back along with new features. You can actually use QuickTime to save audio files now as opposed to being forced to save an audio-only file as an .MOV...